Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He was formerly the Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project and former Executive Director for Buffalo Field Campaign.

Great photo of the wolf pup. The story did not layout many specifics. I personally think it is an American shame that we have been unsuccesful in protecting this species. It is a large animal and it is unique. There is so much wilderness the southwest. It is not like the habitat is gone. The problem has simply been politics and a few selfish ranchers raging at the federal goverment and making recovery impossible.

Unbelievable. If we Americans cannot protect the Mexican wolf, I can’t imagine us protecting anything. The whole thing is bizzar and knots my stomach.

I would never have guessed that men would be fighting “outside an establishment” in the early morning of Jan 1. Overall, however, things have slowed considerably since all the town bears hibernated for winter.

=========================================================

Dec. 28

— A vehicle slid off the road near mile marker 23 on Highway 191. There were no reported injuries.

— A group of people was reportedly walking around with alcohol. A hostess had to confiscate their drinks and the group members were getting upset.

— A large man was reportedly trying to start a fight with a woman outside.

— There was a report of smoke and an odor in the West Yellowstone Police Department booking room.

Dec. 29

— A vehicle slid off the road near mile marker 25 on Highway 191. There were no reported injuries.

— There was a report of a disabled vehicle on Faithful Street just north of Yellowstone Avenue. The vehicle had their flashers on.

— The West Yellowstone Police Department had a person in custody. There was a warrant out for their arrest in West Yellowstone.

— A large air compressor rolled over just below Hebgen Dam and was blocking both lanes of traffic.

— A large group of snowmobilers were riding back and forth across the highway in front of traffic.

— A woman called and reported that her husband, son and two other snowmobilers were overdue to return. They went up Red Canyon and were going riding on Hebgen mountain.

Dec. 30

— A snowmobile was found.

— Someone from Montana Highway Patrol requested to have a West Yellowstone police officer assist with traffic control near mile marker nine on Highway 20.

— There were three reports about people chasing and harassing bison.

— There was a report of a possible snowmobile accident. The victim could not be found, but was supposed to be located near mile marker 15 on the way to Valley View.

— A white GMC truck tried to drive onto Madison Arm Road off of Highway 191 and got stuck in the snow.

— Someone lost a black and orange backpack with goggles and binoculars.

— Someone called and reported that they hit two young bison.

— Someone was making obscene phone calls from an unknown number.

— Someone lost their wallet containing credit cards, a driver’s license, and $400.

Dec. 31

— Someone from Fremont County called to advise that the Idaho Department of Transportation had closed Highway 20 from Ashton north due to high winds and snow drifts.

— There was a strong gas odor on Highway 191.

— There was a report of a hit and run accident. Someone’s red Chevrolet truck was hit late on Dec. 30 and received damages to the passenger side, the rear bumper, the tail light and the rear side paneling.

— Three people called with concerns about bison.

— A man was arrested on DUI charges after doing doughnuts in the middle of Canyon Street.

— A West Yellowstone police officer advised that he was in pursuit of a snowmobile.

Jan. 1

— Six men were allegedly fighting outside of a local establishment.

— Someone lost a black tri-fold wallet.

— A patron was angry that she lost a poster she had purchased and that the bar would not replace it for free. She would not stop yelling.

— An employee reported that a female customer slipped by a door and reported that she was hurt. She did not want an ambulance to respond.

— A young male golden retriever was found. He wasn’t wearing a collar.

PW – I spent some time near Guerneville CA a few years back and this reminds me of the kind of police report published every week in the local paper, although the reporter who covered that police beat, got much more “colorful” in his descriptions of the goings on.
++ Jan 1 – Six men were allegedly fighting outside of a local establishment++

In the early am of Jan 1st, it was 24 below zero in my neck of the woods (a hop, skip and a jump from Yellowstone) so these guys must of been REALLY DRUNK to not have noticed the temps outside.

I am surprised by how much wildlife is struck by cars. There is one or two every week. These animals are probably injured from these collisions. They may run off but are probably injured and do not survive.

My guess would be more large game is killed by cars than by poachers. These reports only cover the area around West Yellowstone. I wonder how many deer, elk, bison, and bears are struck by cars in the tri-state area each year. It must be hundreds. Many are probably not ever reported. The damage from cliping a deer’s legs might be slight to the car and the driver may not report. The deer almost certainly dies, however, away from the road.

Based on my observations over the last 20 years, it is thousands of large mammals that are hit every year in the tri-state area, I went to town today and counted over 20 deer along side the road and who knows how many were under the snow that has been plowed.

A bit of a controversy developing in MI’s UP….this proposed hunt is only for money….don’t have a huge problem if actual harvest is very limited and any $$$ from sale of licenses goes back into increasing moose habitat.

Whether they do the selective moose hunt or not, it would appear they will have a better estimate of current numbers AND possibly learn more about what habitat is used, and maybe learn a bit about the accuracy/precision of their aerial survey techniques.

This is about the scariest thing I have ever read. It is about the cod fishery off Newfoundland that collapsed in the early 90’s due to overfishing. Despite a 10 year fishing moratorium this, the largest of all fisheries in the world, is not comming back. In fact, the few adult cod that can be found appear to have some sort of defect in their shape and their spine. No one knows what it is.

Some may recall that when Europeans came to the New World in the 16th century, they were amazed at the vast stocks of Atlantic Cod, especially those off Newfoundland. It is well documented that fish were so thick they could be caugth by dipping a basket in the water and hauling it out full of cod. The Nothern Cod Fishery was the largest in the world just a few decades ago. It is now gone and will not come back and no one knows why. That is scary.

The first article you link is by an individual who has no training as a fisheries biologist. She is a well meaning “advocate,” and, admittedly has done her own research on the issue. She calls herself the “Codmother.”

That being said, the decline in the cod fisheries is very real, and persisiting. In about 1998 I attended a seminar in which Rozanne Ridgeway, former Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada; former Ambassador to Finland and Germany, and member of the Commission that had been dealing with the cod crisis for the last twenty five years (at that time) made a very detailed and convincing technical and political argument suggesting the cod decline would take a very,very long time to recover, if ever. Unfortunately, she was right.

Her message was pretty clear: Although the problem is a bit different, do not allow this to happen with the salmon fisheries of the West Coast. This is every bit as much a Canadian problem as it is an American one. In the case of the salmon fisheries it is even more international, as the fish migrate more and those who pursue them are numerous, particularly Japan, Russia, China and Korea commericial fishers, who are taking them close off our coast, as I recall.

I can remember my 5th grade teacher telling us of the tremendous cod fisheries of New England, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Many of our large cities in New England were founded and grew as fishing ports because of the endless cod fisheries. I can also remember hearing that Mc Donalds stopped using cod in their Filet of Fish Sandwhich because of a cod shortage but I had no idea things were this bad and were not getting better.

If the overfishing occured in the “greed is good” eighties and the fishery collapsed in the early 90’s, it has had 20 years to recover and is, at best, 10% of what is was in a few spots and is still nearly fishless in most locations.

I find that very disturbing. It is mostly the human behavior that is disturbing. I am surprised that more is not made of this epic loss. I find it disturbing that this recent oil spill in the Gulf has not been more alarming to people. Many feel that spill was not so serious because little oil reached the beaches. Few are worried about the ecosystem and the impacts that may last for centuries. The profit incentive just keeps working its magic in slowly destroying the ocean. It is like we are caught in a huge foggy pile-up on the interstate that is running in very, very slow motion and no one can stop it. I just sit and wonder when it will end and how much death and misery I’ll have to deal with when it finally ends. Sometimes I see glimmers of hope that it will not be so bad while at other times I see things looking worse all the time. We have an entire political party in this country that has a policy of global warming denial. Alls they care about is this year’s profits, feeling great and “in charge,” and getting that $3 million vacation home on Palm Beach since all thier friends have one there…the one in the Hamptons is getting just too boring.

The same thing that happened in Canada with the Cod fisheries is happening right before our eyes in the Meditteranean with Bluefin stocks. Japan with their arrogant attitude of unfettered access to all marine resources on the globe is a large part of the problem.

I’ve also seen documentaries about fishery collapse off Ecuador and Peru. Again, fisherman and politicians were warned but greed won the day and the fisheries collapsed anyway.

So are we just on our merry way to destroying all the fisheries of the planet? …one by one, we will fish everyone until it is gone with no worry that it may not return. No one can control it. No one can stop it. The human species is like a child or a chimpazee that is incapable of delaying gratification even to save its own life?

Yes this is sooooo sad of what has happened with the Cod. But this is actually happening among how many different species that inhabit the oceans. It is because of the greed of many of these big multi-national fishing companies that are indiscrimanately over harvesting all the fish in the oceans worldwide. And Japan is among the worst. Something needs to be done or there will be no fish or seafood that will be left it seems.

Interesing twist on EPA regulation of biomass energy production. They want to regulate in the same manner as fossil fuel plants for emissions under the new “Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.” This could jeopardize much of the current research and put as many as 26,000 green jobs and 130 renewable energy projects and $36 billion in capital investment at risk. Opinion piece:

a review of a book written about man’s inhumane treatment of animals and the animals’ response (i.e. orcas that drown their trainers, tigers that leap over walls to kill their tormenters) “without humans there would be no evil in the world.”

Many more people felt much sadder that Tatiana died than those 3 dope smoking punks who taunted Tatiana who jumped the wall because the 3 loser punks were taunting her and I believe throwing rocks at her.

What is amazing is that Tatiana jumped the wall and ran after the 3 loser punks that tormented her and threw rocks at her. Tatiana could have ran after anyone of the other people there, but she ran after those loser punks who were tormenting her and throwing shit at her. Humans are an evil species. The way we treat animals disgusts me.

“In contrast, I have heard hunters describe shooting 1,000 doves in one morning and 500 prairie dogs in one afternoon. It was all done for the fun of killing. Humans get pleasure from killing, but there is no evidence than animals do.”

How often have I been among the Grizzlies back in the Absaroka wilds and am still here in one piece. I trust the Grizzlies how much more then us freaking Human Two Leggeds. I have had experiences when have looked into the grizzlies eyes and they into mine. And What Intelliegence! I think that instead of maybe the smartest, we humans might be among the dumbest it seems. We are soooo unconnected from it all and soooo out of Balance and Harmony from the earth, the wilds, and all. Just In My Opinion!

“I saw a picture of a wolf shot in Canada and it weighed 213 pounds.” “These things out gorillas”.

listen to these guys. Some of the claims they make are ridiculous. They want Idaho fish and game commissioners fired and tossed in jail for their apparent crimes and replaced with real sportsmen. They claim the Idaho fish and game are full of anti-hunters.

And lets not forget that they brought in these cattle killing big ass wolves from Canada to end hunting and force ranchers off of public lands. The paranoia and the conspiracy theories will give you a good laugh. The funniest one to me is how they plan on making all of the people involved with wolf reintroduction do prison time for their apparent crimes.

This happen in Fergus County there is very little public land in that county, much to my and others dismay. Two cows and 27 sheep. In 1937 a wolf named Snowdrift had killed so many cattle that the Montana Stockgrowers Association put a $2,500 bounty on that wolf. Today Snowdrift is mounted and on display at a hotel in Denton, Montana

Can someone please tell me why California Fish and Game is treating Ferrel pigs as if they were natural wildlife? I was flipping through the channels and came across the show Wild Justice. The game warden I saw is patrolling at night and says “there they are, some San Bernardino Russian Boars. That’s what it’s about, protecting wildlife.” Really? So now we are protecting more invasive species. Maybe next we can make Asian Carp and snake heads game fish. What about the “wild” Everglades Burmese Pythons? We should probably protect them too since there so many of them they’re wildlife now. They actually sell tags to hunt pigs. They should be doing everything they can to get rid of them, not Try make money off them. I would like to hear what some of you think.

Saw the same show, although I have no problem with them making money off them, I agree, they should be doing everything possible to get rid of them, destructive non-native animals that harm the native species.

Guess it depends on how you look at it Mike. Cattle & sheep are an invasive species when it comes to public lands grazing, but that subject has been debated often on this site. Feral pigs were a big problem when I lived in Texas years ago and are probably a MUCH bigger problem now.

Check out the site below but also read the comments, thinking not to many people are aware (or care) about whats going on out there unless it effects their lives day to day.

Upcoming Society for Range Management meeting in Billings will include a few interesting papers on wolves. Some out of Canada reporting on actual field science look pretty useful.

Also of interest are a couple by Charles Kay and Jim Beers:

Wolf Recovery: An Independent Analysis
Charles E. Kay
Utah State University, Logan, Utah, United States
Dr. Kay will discuss various aspects of wolf recovery including – -Do wolves and other predators limit
ungulate populations to levels much lower then the habitat would otherwise support? Do wolves and
other predators reduce and/or eliminate hunting opportunities? What are the true costs of livestock
depredations? Do wolves only kill the young, the sick, or the infirm? Are wolves keystone predators that
are needed to “balance” ecosystems? Dr. Kay will also explain how the federal government has set-up
the various delisting lawsuits to lose and why delisting itself is a hollow goal. And finally, Dr. Kay will
explain why wolf recovery has actually very little to do with wolves and virtually nothing to do with
science. Instead, the entire process has been and is being driven by larger political agendas including
views of nature that are romantic, religious, and racist.

0082
Wolves & The Natural Law
Jim Beers
Jim Beers, Eagan, Minnesota, United States
Wolves & The Natural Law will relate historic concepts of The Natural Law from Plato and Thomas
Aquinas to the Declaration of Independence and GK Chesterton. When applied to wolves throughout the
world today, the role of government consistent with The Natural Law should be composed of four things.
First, government should protect human life and property from wolf depredations. Second, decisions
regarding the presence or abundance of wolves should be a matter for the lowest level of government,
closest to individual communities. Third, wolves should never be imposed or forced on any communities
by far-away central governments or urban majorities that are not directly affected by the presence of said
wolves. The imposition of wolves by forced introduction is distinguishable from the management of
established wolf populations. Fourth, while it is a credit to our humanity that we are concerned about the
preservation of plant and animal species, the extension of this concern to creating a deadly threat to
humans where none exists, must never be assumed to be legitimate. Wolves kill people as well as
destroy human property that in turn ruins families and communities; this is the antithesis of legitimate
government. The concepts presented here are as applicable to UN mandates that protect and expand
elephant populations which in turn trample African children and destroy African crops as to other national
governments and the vacuous philosophies that underpin these violations of The Natural Law, such as
“Native Ecosystem Restoration”, Wilderness, and “Non-Native Species” eradication programs.

I am always struck by how quick folks are to denounce/discredit anyone who’s not a properly-credentialed biologist for venturing any opinions about wolves, yet it’s ok for the anti-wolf career biologist Jim Beers to suddenly take up political philosophy.

SAP, I and most of my associates are always willing to listen to information, even from someone who’s not “properly-credentialed” in a discipline, although most of us do feel obligated to “denounce/discredit” those, credentials or no credentials, who would taint the discussion with self-serving spin that is not based on facts or clear thought.

Before you get too angry at the profession, I would urge you to 1) remember that the so-called “Society for Range Management” is not well-respected as any sort of mainstream scientific organization (they’re mostly a bunch of rancher kids and rancher wannabes with enough money to get “range science” degrees as decorations and to give them some strutting rights back home), 2) know that, except for a couple of noted entomologists who were there because of Logan’s location, the same can be said for both Utah State University and Charles Kay (good people doing honest science are not made to feel comfortable for long at Utah State), and 3) take the time to look closely at the career of “career biologist Jim Beers” and where he actually worked during that career.

Despite his strutting for the uninitiated masses, Beers has really never been considered all that “properly-credentialed” himself. He held on to a job, really not a true professional “career” in my view, by selling his professional soul in an organization generally despised by true “properly-credentialed” biologists. He really didn’t even go very high in that organization; they knew what his soul was worth; and now he tries to market that background as a huckster among the rubes. Remember that old song. He’s the king of Kansas City, the star of every supermarket parking lot. He’s the king of Kansas City, no thanks, Omaha, thanks a lot. When the anti-wolf circus performer wears out for him, he might be at your front door trying to dell you a vacuum cleaner.

However, I am not blaming any particular profession or discipline, just the generally polarized climate in which people like Beers thrive. I see it all the time – denunciations of “activists” because they lack peer-reviewed papers or the correct degree, but no one blinks while agency biologists dabble in arm-chair sociology, law, and policy.

“I see it all the time – denunciations of “activists” because they lack peer-reviewed papers or the correct degree, but no one blinks while agency biologists dabble in arm-chair sociology, law, and policy.”

“Dr. Kay will explain why wolf recovery has actually very little to do with wolves and virtually nothing to do with science. Instead, the entire process has been and is being driven by larger political agendas including views of nature that are romantic, religious, and racist.”

— Well, on the first proposition we can agree; neither wolf recovery nor wolf opposition have much to do with science. Of course, you could say the same for any issue. Science merely informs policy debates that are ultimately driven by people’s underlying values.

I wouldn’t disagree that wolf recovery is, in part, driven by a romantic view of nature, but “religious” and “racist”? Give me a break! I might just as well argue that hunting is sexist and racist because it is dominated by white males. I think Charles Kay is trying to reframe the debate to suit his own political agenda.

The wolf issue in the West is increasingly about who controls public lands and wildlife resources–and to what end. In fact, some (on both sides) have argued this was always the issue.

“Landry thinks green bins full of compost are luring coyotes into residential areas and that ready sources of food make them so big. He worries that the coyote population hasn’t peaked, since a farmer in Heatherton killed a pregnant female and cut it open to find 14 pups inside.”

“The funds are part of PPL’s licensing agreement under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and will impact fisheries, wildlife and habitat enhancement projects within the 550-mile corridor of the Madison-Missouri rivers from Yellowstone National Park to the headwaters of Fort Peck Reservoir.

It’s certain that legislators don’t have the time to address any legislation about anything important without the help of outsiders, not constituents, unless they are corporate interests that are interested only in pillaging the public’s property…

They only tell the public about them when the news gets leaked or the bills are introduced and someone notices…

Interesting hypocrisy here, aren’t they “outsiders” to that part of the country? Isn’t that what they rail against in the west all the time? “Those damned eastern hippies trying to tell us how to live in the west…” Maybe they should just stay home and take care of their own issues.

This is actually a pretty good article. The importance of this story is that it outlines the timeline and continuing frustration of the state of MN to get its long recovered wolves delisted in the face of numerous and protracted litigations by wolf advocates, using creative substantive and protracted procedural arguments, some of whom are animal activists and simply do not want them off the ESA regardless of whether they should be on there or not. This population is recovered in the Great Lakes Region. This is bad government based on ESA law (that federal courts have to interpret contrary to common sense) and that needs to be fixed.

The comments on the article by Rocko and Fanning do nothing for the issue, other than fan the fire of the anti crowd and serve the egos of these misguided and often misinformed gadflies.

What one finds in the Ely area are, and I don’t mean to be inflammatory, the old guard with all the old stereotypes of wolves, who would rather SSS, and have all the deer to themselves, and a slow but steady influx of people who do appreciate all of nature, including the wolf who do not understand/nor appreciate the venom directed toward wolves. Yes, the time has come for some sort of management in MN, but I would have more fear of those hunting wolves than the wolves outside my door.

This is not just about Ely, which by the way is the location of the International Wolf Center started by Dr. Mech, the chief wolf scientist for FWS and a professor at U of M. Small town of about 4,000 people, at the fringe of the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness in Northern MN.

This is about state – federal relations and the failure of a federal law – the ESA. This from the state Attorney General regarding this guy’s litigation, as cited in the article:

++The state of Minnesota has been very critical of the FWS and pulled no punches in its filings made in support of the Tyler/Lueck case. The frustration includes the agency’s failure to respond to the state’s petition for delisting. A response is required by rule within 90 days, the state had at one point not received a response after 150 days.++

MN and WI both have delisting petitions before FWS. MN was so frustrated it decided to go it alone given its own special regulation covering only wolves in MN. As I have said before some litigation has centered on the technical DPS (Distinct Population Segment) legal issues, similar to the NRM litigation.

Hunting, according to MN’s current wolf plan would only be considered 5 years after delisting. No certainty that hunting would be approved. That is a state decision.

Bottom line, and not unlike the Western states, they want the feds off their backs because the process is not working to recognize local interests as represented by their elected governments (here I am speaking of the state of MN, not Ely or this plaintiff). State-federal relations are under increasing tension in this subject area, and it is going to get worse.

WM,
I’m not arguing that point at all, and I said in my reply that the time has come for management in the state. My contentions are Mr. Fanning and Mr. Rockholm and their Yellowstone mantra. Northern Minnesota in general and Superior National Forest/The boundary Waters area in particular, where “most” of the wolves are found, is not the Yellowstone area. And I do stand by my point that I have respect but no fear of the wolves in the area, but if and when the lead starts to fly, that will be a concern.

While I agree that the wolf population in Minnesota is recovered, I disagree with the idea that there is some pressing “need” for state management. Wolf populations in Minnesota are, for all intents and purposes, the same as they were 10-15 years ago.

Regardless, I seriously hope FWS can remove them from the list asap, as this will go a long way toward showing people that the ESA is not “broken”. Again, delisting is relatively new and the courts are still trying to find a balance between the plain language of the law, Congress’ intent, and the traditional role of states in wildlife management.

– – – – – – – – –

The wolf issue is not about wolves; rather, wolves have become a tool for opposing forces on the far left and right who want to promote animal rights and states’ rights, respectively.

Points West,
I agree. The answer is to imprison or heavily fine employers who employ illegal imigrants. That would eleviate a huge desire to come here under the radar, because their would be no jobs for the illeglas to get. Of course we also need to patrol the heck out of the border, with actual military personel, and end as much illegal immigration as possible. If we stopeed what amounts to slave labor in the USA, and kept immigrants from violating laws about entering the country, we solve a huge majority of our country’s issues. No matter how you sum it all up, this is about the all mighty dollar. We should all put our money where the security of our nation is…here.

You don’t need walls, you need millitary presence, a legitimate enforcement of law governing entrance to our country, and a firm hand that shakes the money tree until abusers of the law fall out of it!

This type of issue is a direct impact on our environment in many ways….walls, imported goods which inflate pollution, over grazing of cattle, over harvesting of fish, detruction of forests etc. Make the laws work for the country, not allow greed and ignorance to destroy it.

This is only indirectly related to right-wing anti-wolf and anti-wildlife types.

Loughner makes two remarks about “genocide” in his video. It sounds to me like he is asserting that he, as a white American, is the victim of racism or genocide and that race was the motive behind him being kicked out of Pima College. This is typical right-wing rhetoric…white folks as the victims of blacks and Mexicans in America. It is especially true in Arizona. Even anti-wolf people make comments that it is California that wants to protect wolves…California where there are so many Mexicans and blacks who do not care about good white Americans in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. In fact, I’m sure some think the reintroduction of wolves is a conspiracy to destroy good hard working white ranchers.

There is no doubt Sharon Angle’s political ads in the Nevada Senate race were designed to play on white fear of Mexicans…that whites are victims of racism and some form of genocide.

Swedish wolf hunt underway. They are trying to hold the population at about 200 while back-filling with a few imported wolves from Russia or Finland to maintain the gene pool. I had wondered how the hunting organization thought 200 wolves would be much of a threat to the 300,000-400,000 moose population (and hunter harvest of about 85,000 moose — 12 times that of Alaska which has very roughly 7,000 wolves), but the interviewed hunter indicates that it is the threat to their hunting dogs that are used to hunt even moose that is their basis for opposition to wolves.http://www.thelocal.se/31448/20110115/

If wolves are a threat to their dogs, don’t take the dogs out hunting. That solves that problem. What is wrong with people? They have no common sense! I have no sympathy for these hound hunters who lose their dogs to predators when they are out hound hunting. They are putting their dogs at risk and act like it’s the wolves fault for when they attack their hunting dogs.

I agree. I was raised to very specifically believe that only the lowest and filthiest of redneck trash had to use dogs to hunt. Using dogs to tree lions and bears and then safely executing them at close range is despicable; but, hunting moose with dogs is even lower than low, something closer to fishing with dynamite.

They are putting their dogs in dangerous situations. If you actually care for your dog and its well being, you don’t let them run loose in an environment where predators have easy access to them. This is just common sense. This shows the hound hunters care nothing for their dogs. They only use them to tree animals that they shoot.

You need to write a well thought out hard copy letter, pointing out your reasons for opposition, keeping it on point and stay away from the name calling or blame game, simply state your concerns in a clear manner way. Send it to your representatives and then follow up with an email to each one of them to check and see if they have received and again stating your concerns.

Actually the more detailed you can be the better I have always found, if you have any studies or opinions by experts to back up your concerns, then put them in the letter, they will have their aids research those and perhaps make a more informed choice. Now take into account the more people that are residents of the state that you can get to write letters the better. A well detailed letter outlining your concerns will be paid attention to. The reason I said hard copy is because in the day and age of email, often times they gloss over them but normally will pay attention to something they can put their hands on.

I thought you might say that. I guess it’s time to dust off the english textbooks. I’ve never been good at properly referencing studies or statistics, or writing out a well formulated argument. Some on here seem to be quite proficient at it.

So much for my idea of going on a 5 page, emotionally charged, name-calling rant. 😉

I have found out over the years, it is always best when writing a representatives to be factual when addressing concerns, rhetoric never gets you anywhere and often times, makes you look as bad as those you oppose.

Whether people like to believe it or not, elected officials do read well thought out letters, often times, they will still go the direction you oppose, but they do read them.

Interesting mix of legislative sponsors for this bill: The area north of and including Spokane, sharing common border with the ID panhandle. Area south of Yakima all the way to the Columbia, and then west past the Cascade Divide. Pierce County north of Seattle on the west side of the Cascades. All three of these areas contain habitat eventually expected to be occupied by wolves and the elk herds upon which they will heavily feed (Approximately 80 percent of Western wolf is proving to be elk).

I doubt this bill will pass, but the discussion around it will likely be a wakeup call for the folks in the Division of Wildlife that have been putting together their WA wolf management plan in the rarified air of Olympia. Since the draft plan came up for public review and comment, alot has happened in the adjacent states that shows just what a management plan is and is not in the context of legislatures AND importantly the inability of the FWS and the Federal government (via court decisions interpreting the ESA) to make good on the promises around which these plans have been and are being developed.

From a cursory browsing of this bill, I don’t like it. It is incredibly poorly written, in its drafting alone, but it sure as Hades sends a message that the federal government cannot be trusted on the topic of wolf management under the ESA as it exists today….and then there is that message about states rights.

I want to see the provision in the Draft Wolf Plan that compensates livestock owners of lands greater than 100 acres, who lose livestock to wolves, actually funded by the legislature.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation grass roots banquets are just getting started across the West. WA chapters have a bunch in February, I think. I have never attended one, but can surely bet one topic that will be on the evening’s agenda.

I want to see the provision in the Draft Wolf Plan that compensates livestock owners of lands greater than 100 acres, who lose livestock to wolves, actually funded by the legislature. YEAH, LIKE THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES.

It was disappointing to see support from the Pierce County area for this bill. Pierce County is directly south of King County.

I would also like to see a compensation program built into the management plan, with enough protections in place to mitigate potential fraud as much as is prudently possible. I don’t anticipate that happening in Washington State at this point in time!

I have been member of RMEF nearly since it started. I belong no other hunting type groups . I joined because of its initial and very successfully executed mission of preserving habitat and providing opportunities for public hunting for all on private and public lands. I was pleased by the organization’s initial and very patient “lets wait and see,” approach to the wolf reintroduction.

I was displeased when they waited way to long to become involved (just last year) as impacts on elk herds began to be felt, and on the red-neck reactionary response they attempted after waiting too long – short on facts, long on sabre rattling and overstating the issue. That is part of the new “leadership” of its Exec. Dir. David Allen, who, by the way, needs an etiquette lesson on how to speak about a federal judge in your home town.

I still didn’t accurate describe the WA draft plan compensation program. It would give 2x the compensation amount for livestock losses on tracts greater than 100 acres. A law would have to be passed and funded for this to become a reality. In these economic times unlikely in my view.

“During the questions period, one man brought up the controversial issue of wolf reintroduction. The hunter made it clear he wanted to get rid of wolves because of their impact on big-game herds and livestock.”

This proves how anti-wolf some hunters are and they clearly want to get rid of wolves.

But the Madison bison, those that are having the most problems with Dept. of Livestock in Montana, like to migrate along the Madison River. You can’t tell them where to migrate just because that’s where the land that someone wants them on is over there.

Though I do like your idea on annexation. Just that there needs to be more land involved in the right places.

Which agency was it that wanted to buy the RTR from Malcom Forbes or whoever, but lost out to CUT when they came in with cash? I had heard that before CUT purchased that ranch that it was looked at as a possible addition to YNP?

If I remember the Forest Service was going to buy the ranch, then Regan was elected president and in 1981 he disallowed the purchase. Then it was sold to the CUT which has been nothing but a PITA for the locals and the county.

The sad part about Yellowstone is that it simply does not have winter range in many adjacent areas like the North Yellowstone, and there have been no effective means to obtain it.

I tried to learn a bit more about the RTR and its role since it was the Malcolm Forbes Ranch (that is what it was called I believe when he owned it) which was then sold to CUT. Does anyone know if there is one definitive source that accurately describes this history and how we got to this stupid and costly bison habitat easement? There was a minor fee simple purchase by the FS of a small portion, I believe, then some easements awhile back, and now this 3.3 M fiasco? Are there any other proposals in the works to obtain winter range next to other areas of Yellowstone?

I’ve always thought it was truly a shame that of all the things the federal government has thrown money at that they couldn’t pull off this key purchase bordering Yellowstone and saved all the grief. I agree with Save Bears that it is unlikely the government will ever buy it. The only hope I see for key acquisitions in the future is that such activity captures the interest of people with a combination of very deep pockets and public interest (specifically about western lands) at heart. The government and common folks are largely tapped out — the only ones left with that kind of money (although a growing group) are those who have been able to accumulate a lot of wealth in the post-2003 favorable tax environment. RMEF seemed like it was a good candidate to pull off something like that purchase but then I began reading that the deep pockets supporting the group were philosophically resisting “publicization” of more land, and wanted to see more projects on private land (where they could obviously afford to hunt, unlike much of the population). Now, I can only imagine the discussion “Now why are we buying winter range for an elk herd that’s getting eaten out of existence by wolves?”

Thanks for the link to the BFC webpage for the RTR history. I also came across a couple of GAO reports, including some testimony before a Congessional Committee. None seemed to be that comprehensive or clear identifying all the playser, interests and obstacles over the timeframe from Forbes purchase of the ranch to present. I was hoping for a timeline summary of sorts.

Hunters that talk about getting rid of wolves show their true colors. It is not about conservation at all with these hunters. On Mutual Of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom today there is a story about a Park in Zambia where ALL the lions were killed by Trophy Hunters except one lioness. SCI should be so proud. “Promoting Wildlife Conservation Worldwide”

The last lioness. I seen that one. It’s a good show for sure. She kept following the cameraman because she had no one. It’s good they brought 2 male lions in at the end. Now, they are probably dead shot by trophy hunters, but who knows. Trophy hunters also killed the last desert lion. These people have no respect for wildlife.

If these lions were so rare, why was any hunting allowed at all? It sounds like this “hunter” is a scum bag but there also seems to be a problem the local goverment and their game management.

I watch a nice HD documentary last week about some Brits who few a balloon 5000 miles across Africa. They reiterated that big game hunters and organization in Africa are responsible for preserving much of the wildlife there.

You always hear how big game hunters are the real conservationists. What a joke! Their ONLY interest is having access to animals to kill for trophies- PERIOD. As if it’s because they really care about wildlife!!!

Hunters having less of a stranglehold over game and fish departments is a good thing. People that legimately care about wildlife and the environment will step up to replace funding I am sure. There are a million ways to fund wildlife restoration- just ask the Nature Conservancy

Bob- It should start on state level first. In certain states a percentage from taxes is funding conservation. There are plenty of ways- I know in my state when you do your taxes you are asked whether you want to contribute to habitat restoration efforts.

William- Its the same in Montana taxes. Problem is if I want to see wildlife I visit private land, I go to the wilderness if I want to get away from people. The best habitat is productive private land.

Bob: The “best habitat” differs greatly depending upon the species. Some song birds prefer grasslands, others mature forest. The point is what is considered good habitat depends upon the specific needs of a species. To make the blanket claim that “the best habitat is productive private land” is misleading at best.

In the West people tended to settle (and thus privatize) the low areas between mountain ranges because of access to water, lower elevation, gentler slope, etc. These lands also happen to be good winter habitat for many ungulates, which probably explains your experience. However, if you look beyond deer and elk you will find an entirely different (and much more diverse) world! 😉

It is stupid ads like this that feed the fools of myths who feed on their own stupidity. Guess I’ll have to go back to buying jeans made in sweatshops in SE Asia… which is less offensive than the ignorance this ad glorifies.

It’s marketing. Marketeers and advertisers do not care about truth. Myth, fantasy, whatever gets you hooked or focused, and then remember their product and attributes.

Come to think of it I have seen several wolf related ads that hit the myth from both sides. One I recall (forgot the product so they didn’t really do their job), showed some guy lost in the dark of night on a snowy landscape, and freezing. Great anticipation of wolves creeping up on him (the fear factor). Then they lay down next to him and keep him warm for the night.

Another I can’t stand involves a polar bear hugging a human (even looks pretty real) – the link to be made is the fuel efficient car helps stop global warming, I think.

You hear a lot about hunters being conservationists because there is a lot of truth to it. No doubt some are stupid and selfish but, in general, hunters have been good for wildlife. Why must you try and deny this almost irrefutable fact? …just because you like drawing attention to yourself?

How about fisherman? Don’t you think fishermen have played a crucial role in preserving rivers and streams because they like to fish?

Indeed, this is just playing into the stupidity of those who claim that wolves will eventually eat some little girl while waiting for the school bus in the dark… Oh wait, Larry wide-stance Craig said that… and most of his followers believed every word of it too. I watched while he addressed a legislative hearing, live over a speaker phone from DC, and the anti-wildlife/anti-wolf gang ate it up and repeated his terminology in every speaker’s statement at that hearing. He was coaching over the phone and setting the tone for the hearing.

This ad is so stupid but some will believe it and bump Carhartt sales because they think the company really understands what they are up against.. perhaps they do. Either way, I don’t plan to buy another pair of Carhartt jeans until there is some retracting of this egregiously offensive campaign made publicly. I need to write a letter to the company about it. But then, in advertising nothing is sacred and nothing is too stupid to make a commercial of it.

Have you seen this ad? It’s so stupid that I can guess that a bunch of idiots would believe that it can happen just like that. In fact, one has to wonder if those two clowns who shot that wolf and then waited a week or two to turn themselves in probably saw that ad and used its premise to formulate their delayed tale of woe, which sounds rather familiar to what this ad presupposes…

I just wrote a letter of complaint to Carhartt about how ignorant even making such a commercial is. Effing idiots. Just goes to show you that no matter how offensive or dishonest, if it makes $$, it’s okay because it makes money for someone. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?

It’s too bad that with all the wolf hysteria, you can’t just take a commercial like this for what it is and laugh. There are still too many people out there using human safety as an argument against wolves.

“It’s too bad that with all the wolf hysteria, you can’t just take a commercial like this for what it is and laugh. There are still too many people out there using human safety as an argument against wolves.”

“When pressed further, he said that he would prefers to not have any wolves around at all.

“Personally, I would prefer to not have them. The wolf is a native species in the country with the right of domicile, but it is difficult to accept because it does not go well with our tradition of hunting with free-running dogs,” he said.-swedish hunter

Well, not much different from the attitudes in the American hunting crowd, ~don’t like the challenge so get rid of whatever it is so I can do what I want, morally appropriate or not. And damn all that wildlife anyway, what about my dogs?

…because they are too distracted by self-serving entertainment to notice that there is something wrong with the picture they’re looking at.

Which makes one ask; can Idaho afford to remain a state? Maybe they are headed toward a return to territory status… Man wouldn’t that upset some apple carts in the anti-fed cliques? Can you imagine if the state went broke and lost its sovereignty to the fed, no state’s rights and only federal law to govern them? (Sorry, couldn’t help it, I just had to add that little barb.) ;~]

Sometimes I cannot figure out what some of the far-right politicians want. It sounds as if they want to return to some form of manorialism where the entire country is broken into several privately owned fuedal kingdoms, the Lord owns everything, the Lord controls things with a military and religious nobility, and 95% of the population are penniless peasants with no rights and who are tied to a plot of land to where it is illegal for them to leave.

In the mid 1990’s, I was in Livingston, Montana with a group of people, where, who or what the reason was is long forgotten. But George Wuerthner was there and we were talking and he said “it took 17 generations in Europe to develop royalty and it is taking 5 generations in American to develop the same”. So true, So true.

I still can’t figure out why some people are fighting so hard to move massive parts made in Asia across a pristine American highway.

Some companies are so short sighted when it comes ot the logistics involved with supply chain management. They see some figures that compare making it here compared to making it abroad and think ,”Why, I’ll save millions by doing it this way!!”. It’s almost as if some of them never consider the potential side-effects. The backlasch against these megaloads is a perfect example.

Another example is Boeing…….They’ve been bragging about their global supply chain for years. Now look at them, the 787 delays are starting to have a major material impact on their business. They have systematically spread more manufacturing work across the globe over the last couple of decades and they can’t coordinate anything anymore. Sub-standard parts being made in other countries are failing safety tests, and it takes longer to respond to those issues with the decentralized nature of their supply chain. These issues have caused years of delay. They are now losing billions of dollars in lost profit on their “magnificent” global supply chain.

Europe has always had an upper class of some kind. Manorialism/Feudalism arose after money had pretty much disappeared from Europe…after the economic and population collapse in the late 6th century. Many parts of Europe returned to a near subsistence economy with bartering and with almost no money nor long distance trade or commerce. Manorialism/Feudalism was a system that provided for a moneyless local economy. It was largely based on oaths, agreements, and land usage, that kept people fed, sheltered, and protected without the need of money. Until the return of money and long distance commerce, there was no other option. You had to have some local type of economy and legal/social system. People grew food, manufactured goods, and provided military service in exchange for the Lords administration and for the Lord’s protection. It remained small scale and local because it was based on oaths, and agreements, and on land which were held mostly in something like a personal relationship with the Lord.

One of the most interesting things I have ever heard is that when the population and towns started returning the Europe in the later part of the Early Middle Ages (9th and 10th century say), there began to be small local wars between the towns and the local Lords. People could escape serfdom by taking refuge in a town for one year. Lords often did not like the towns providing safe haven for THEIR serfs and did not like the growing towns in general. Lords would send their nobles to towns to knock heads together and to gather up escaped serfs. Towns began forming communes which were militias to defend against noble violence. Both the King and the Pope tried to prevent the violence but it got out of hand in many locals resulting in what amounted to small wars. This is why towns of the Middle Ages have walls and towers. They were not to defend against raiders; the were to defend against the local nobility. The nobility was not about to relinquish control to the towns. The towns had to fight for it in what was nearly civil war in some areas.

The towns grew into small cities during the High Middle Ages but then Europe had another round of plague staring with the Black Death in 1348 that, by the end of the 14th century, halved the recovering population of Europe.

Just curious, as I have read Will Graves “Wolves in Russia” a few months back, if the book was ever discussed on the forum. In a nut shell, I went into it with an open mind, looking for a bit more historical perspective, but was not much impressed with the book’s content, nor how it was put together. If discussion did occur, under what heading and month/year.

That book has been brought up a few times in several threads, though I don’t know that Ralph has ever posted a specific post to open discussion about the book.

The book itself is a propaganda play. Instead of looking to provide what is promised, this is an anti-wolf tool created to give certain groups something to cite as a way to scare people about wolf populations in the US growing.

How much of it is true, or at least somewhat accurate? It would be impossible to tell, the stories referenced are often entirely anecdotal.

Wolves in Russia are either supernatural in their strength and seeming willingness to just take out entire farms of people – or there is a culture of superstition and fear which causes people to exaggerate.

The other notable element to Mr. Graves book is that he continuously implies, or even just outright states, that wolf-based parasites are numerous, and highly transmittable to humans. One such parasite is rabies… rabies? I hardly think that you can pin rabies on wolves. One of my theories regarding the European folklore surrounding wolves is that outside of livestock depredation, people probably didn’t have close encounters with many wolves. Imagine if your only real interactions with wolves was them hunting your sheep and wolves infected with rabies?

As for more of the parasite discussion… don’t handle wolf feces – I mean, should the desire come upon you to handle wild animal feces, if Mr Graves is to be believed, handling wolf feces is particularly bad. But “parasite” is a buzz-word for the anti-wolf movement and so, it had to feature prominently in the book.

Strangely, however, if you overlook the anecdotal “evidence,” the peculiarities of the composition of the book, the poor citations, the terrible writing, the dull and dry presentation, and of course the obvious underlying propaganda, there is a valuable statement which echoes throughout the book and speaks more to the underlying motivations of people, whether it is in Russia or in the US or anywhere else.

“I kill the wolf not because he is grey. I kill the wolf because he kills my sheep.”

You can perhaps forgive a rural man in rural Russia, in times past, who has little but his sheep having such an attitude. But to transplant that attitude into a country which produces a product called “mechanically-separated chicken,” and has taken the livestock industry through a true industrial revolution and turned it in to a mass-production industry. That is unforgiveable. A bullet is no longer the only tool available, but it is often the only one considered.

The funny thing is that the only 2 supposed “wolf experts” that the wolf haters bring up constantly are Will Graves and Dr. Val Geist. Both of whom wrote the book wolves in Russia. You can add Jim Beers in there as well, so let’s make it the only 3 supposed wolf experts that the wolf haters bring up. Jim Beers nowadays like to think he’s a wolf expert. All they have in trying to scare people with wolves is this book. Answer me this, with these wolf haters claiming how terribly dangerous wolves are to people, why hasn’t there been one human death since wolves were reintroduced into the northern rockies 15 years ago? Clearly, if wolves realy and truly wanted to go after humans and kill them, they would, but they haven’t. There have even been some cases of people seeing wolves. The wolves ran off. I am not saying it’s never going to happen, but these wolf haters need to give it a rest. There are by far more threatening things in the world than wolves. You look at all of the things that kill people, wolves far by far a lot less people than all of the other things in this world that have been known to kill a lot of people.

Here is one’s comments about wolves in Russia.

“Poorly Written : Fact or Folklore, November 3, 2010
By
Mike
Amazon Verified Purchase(What’s this?)
This review is from: Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages (Paperback)
Whether this book was necessary in terms of balancing the wolf debate between pro-wolf and anti-wolf contingents is beside the point. This is one of the more poorly written books I have ever read. The book was edited by Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science fro the University of Calgary. Other than his forward for the book, I see no proof of editing. There is almost no structure to the writing. One starts to read the topic sentence of a paragraph, and, without transition, within the same paragraph the author writes about something else. This could have been a powerful book if he had try to organize his facts and sources. There is no index in the book, so it is difficult to cross reference something Graves has written. There are no maps for the readers reference. There are no charts or data tables to organize his research. To be honest, the book reads as if someone had newly discovered the copy and paste function on their computer, and lost track how many times the same thing was pasted.

The book I have is now dog-eared with sections that made me either laugh out loud, or wonder how this book could be recognized as a scholarly work on wolves. Wolves living until 20 in the wild. Moose dying of ringworm. Wolves throwing a child over their shoulder and jumping over a meter high fence. Buried in the appendix are two paragraphs on pages 174 and 183 Graves citing 3 authors and researchers from Russia and Finland who refute the idea of man-eating wolves or wolves showing aggression toward humans. In that respect, there is no attempt at balance. An occasional citing of David Mech or Rolf Peterson is as close as Graves gets to studies done in N. America that have the slightest hint of wolves roll in nature. I wonder if any editing occurred at all. The publishing date makes the book appear as a rush job of half truths for the anti-wolf folks of the Northern Rocky Mountains, who seem to quote this book as Bible. It is not.

In closing, this is a poorly written, poorly edited, overpriced book, that due to the nature of the writing, and the what can you believe and what can you not believe nature of his information I would not recommend for anyone to read if you have interest in wolves, pro or con. Read the latest rendition of Mech’s book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation if you really want a true understanding of the wolf in the world in general and North America in specific. Graves has done nothing more than put together a loose collection of anecdotal information about wolves in Russia where one can only guess what is fact or fiction. Because of this, it is difficult to take the book seriously. Anti-wolf folks use the book as a focus for continued persecution of the wolf. Pro-wolf folks might be curious to read the book to find the source of some of the renewed virulence for wolves.

Wolves perhaps, will always be controversial. This book is nothing more than a footnote in that controversy. ”

“Her premature death from deadly poison points illustrates that the West presents a dangerous minefield to wide-ranging native carnivores such as wolves, wolverines and bears,” said Wendy Keefover-Ring of the group WildEarth Guardians.

“It is a deadly toxicant should not be manufactured or used at all,” she said.

ALL kinds of poison that kills wildlife need to be banned plain and simple!

I could comment on multiple things here… be it Wendy, or what she said, or the fact that poison was involved.

However, her observation did nothing to move the discussion forward. Colorado, as a state, agrees with her. It’s illegal.

The death of 341F was heart-breaking. But her death shouldn’t really perpetuate a discussion about how “bad poison is bad.” The fact that she was killed by an illegal substance is only mildly more infuriating than had she been shot.

The discussion which should be spawned by her death is “why the hell aren’t there wolves in Colorado?” That’s the question that matters and that’s the one that Wendy and WildEarth Guardians should be worried about. It’s not soundbite time for obscure references. When there was talk about there being a wolf pack in High Lonesome Ranch, one report stated that the Division of Wildlife got calls telling them to “take care of the wolves, and do it quietly.” I think the resistance of humans to even attempt to coexist with animals is a pretty clear and well-known impediment – which could be addressed as part of discussion surrounding getting wolves back in to Colorado. By working with ranchers and hunters to alleviate fears, put deterrence measures in to place, and bringing in groups like Predator Friendly to demonstrate that you can co-exist with predators even if you are a rancher.

It reminds me of all this energy surrounding the story out of Arizona and the assassination attempt. People are trying to discuss how best to politicize the events?!!?

How can we move the discussion forward and move closer to a resolution instead of getting caught up on the fact that someone managed not only to break one law, by killing a wolf in Colorado, but more laws by doing it with an illegal poison?

Most outbursts, such as that made by the man in the meeting, are just that. Outbursts. This one was more unique in that the man stood in a room of people and said something most would only say behind the anonymity of the internet. However, it has been a common response – when a certain side does not get its way – to resort to threats of a 2nd amendment solution.

Is anyone really angry enough to follow through on the threats? Very rarely. The fear of repurcussions is often enough to force these thoughts in to the world of fantasy for most of these people. However, America has it’s history.

Not all threats are idle, and not all minds are sane. This has cost America two presidents, and countless more people.

Is the gun possession laws of America entirely to be blamed for this? Of course not, but as Eddie Izzard said “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But the guns make it a lot easier I feel.”

The 2nd amendment was written to be as clear as possible in it’s day. The fear was that one day, the government would not adhere to the rules laid out for it, and it would turn on its people and attempt to control them – forsaking democracy. Therefore, since “infringing on an American’s right to keep and bear arms” would have to be an initial step towards taking control, the solution was obvious – don’t let government do that.

What foresight could not provide for the writers of the constitution was an appreciation of what technology would do.

They could not have imagined the weaponry you can walk in to a store and buy. And of course, they could not account for a twisted mind.

My thoughts on the man who talked about shooting legislators? It is just a verbalization of what the message boards around this country are filled with.

The underlying anger and fear? You can thank the media for that. And we can get into that some other time.

The fact that Americans are more and more turning to the “2nd amendment solution” when something doesn’t go their way? I have no solutions. The reason for the second amendment is seen around the world even today. There are many dictatorships, and millions of oppressed citizens. Tunisia’s situation just the most recent to hit the world news – not America’s news, but… everywhere else. The justification for massive magazine capacity, extraordinary firepower and types of firearms and ammunition available escapes me. But I will say this much, and this is where the constitution is patently and dangerously wrong. Not ALL Americans should have the right to bear arms, and this country is terrible at dealing with, diagnosing and treating mental illness. Until those two issues are somehow brought in to alignment, there will be many more shootings in America and you will never know for sure if a man shouting something in a meeting won’t become a man loading up 50 rounds of ammunition in a high-powered hand gun and trying to assassinate a politician.

++What foresight could not provide for the writers of the constitution was an appreciation of what technology would do.++

This not only apply to the 2nd amendment but also to the 1st amendment. The writers of the constitution never dreamed that one day there would be a telegraph, telephone, radio, TV and the Internet. A fifty round clip may be similar to a person able to send 50 e mails with the send button.

There are unbalanced people with firearms and unbalanced people with computers. Computers may not kill but they can hurt an individual in ways not physical.

“JOSEPH — Now that wolves have migrated back to Oregon, an argument is simmering about what to call them. Their Latin name is Canis lupus, and most people know them simply as “gray wolves.”

Oregon ranchers who object to their presence because they prey on cattle call them “Canadian gray wolves.”

Sean Stevens, spokesman for environmental group Oregon Wild, says the Canadian reference is a pejorative, “a code for wolves that don’t belong here, by people who don’t think they should be here. To a scientist, a gray wolf is just a gray wolf.”

Biologist Ed Bangs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s gray wolf recovery coordinator in Helena, Mont., avoids the name game whenever possible. “We just call them ‘Canis lupus irregardless,'” he quips. “

They are trying to pull the same shit in OR like they have done in Idaho and Montana. Claiming these supposed non native bigger wolves are going to kill off the resident native wolves. it’s hogwash. What it comes down to is some ranchers and some hunters cannot stand that wolves are back.

I don’t know if they really believe this stuff or if it is just an argument to say the wolf transplant was illegal because they were the wrong kind of wolves and/or the “right kind” of wolves were extinct in the Northern Rockies (and elsewhere). The judges decided they were the right kind of wolves.

After 15 years of arguing over this, my conclusion is that they were, and are, the right wolves. Even if they were not, it makes no difference on the ground.

Over the years, biologists have greatly reduced the number of wolf sub-species recognized. All of the gray wolves in the U.S. and Canada are basically they same genetically, although the Arctic wolf and Mexican wolf are separated out as different enough to be a sub-species. The eastern Canadian timber wolf is being pulled out to become a separate species Canis lycaon, instead of Canis lupus. Lycaon might be almost identical to the red wolf.

There has never been the conditions in the Rocky Mountains of Canada and of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for development of sub-species between them. Wolves are too mobile for that. They travel many hundreds of miles to mate. For sub-species to develop, there have to be restrictions on mating (usually due to geography).

It is well known the many animals from northern climate tend to be a bit bigger than those further south (Bergmann’s Rule), but this difference is due to subtle genetic differences or maybe even non-genetic factors. This is true of humans as well as wolves. This does not make humans from the north a difference sub-species.

There is little evidence that the current wolves are in fact bigger than the ones originally here. There are very few intact specimens. Jasper National Park area is not much colder that the high elevation parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and not all that much farther north. I think people just believe that because it is a different country.

There is no evidence that slightly bigger wolves are more successful in making kills of their prey than smaller wolves. I’ve seen no study that shows this to be so. I do know that bigger wolves have more “stopping power” than lighter ones, but the lighter wolves tend to be faster. Because wolves hunt in packs, a variety of sizes is best.

This is a political argument, but it would be useful if a few biologists bothered to produce some hard data on the controversy. It would not convince the hard core, but not everyone has a closed mind.

As Ed Bangs said in the article Ralph, no one really weighed them when they were killing them, so where does this much smaller wolf theory come from? Dave Mech said we have very few records regarding the wolves that were wiped out before. If the wolves weighed less than the wolves that were reintroduced, it’s most likely because of their diet. They were being killed off, so they probably wouldn’t have had many chances to eat like the wolves do now. I’m convinced it has absolutely nothing to do with subspecies. I believe any wolf would be hated because all wolves no matter what subspecies they are will kill deer, elk, livestock, etc. They would have hated the “native” wolf if it was around today. You will sometimes hear anti wolf folks say the native wolf was quiet and didn’t cause any problems. If it didn’t cause any problems, why was it wiped out?

Ronald Nowak also found evidence that these “bigger” wolves did occupy northern Idaho. it’s really a lame argument with no merit. All it comes down to is we don’t want wolves here. Doesn’t matter what kind they are, we don’t want them here. As long as the wolf eats deer, elk, livestock. etc they will be hated and not wanted by some.

“It’s a human tendency to overestimate. You see the same thing with bear sightings,” Husseman said.

In actuality, wolves have the lean, rangy build of distance runners – an adaption that helps them chase down prey, he said.

Some opponents of wolf reintroduction claim that the Canadian gray wolves released in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s are a larger, more aggressive subspecies than native wolves, which were extinct by the 1930s. Biologists say there’s little or no evidence to back up that assertion.

“I’m curious that they throw out those numbers – that the Canadian wolves are 50 to 100 pounds bigger than the native Idaho wolves,” Husseman said. “I don’t know where those numbers come from.”

There are only 5 (or 6) subspecies of wolf… that’s it. The mass 24+ list of subspecies from the past was based on what some would say is poor science. They used either morphological differentiation which was based on something such as coloring. As I am sure you know, wolves like to be varied in color. I think it’s a fashion thing. Or they used location, which again, based on the fact that we know wolves can travel hundreds if not thousands of miles, is somewhat ambiguous as a differentiator.

I believe it was back in 1992 that Mech and others narrowed down the list to just the 5 (or 6, or perhaps 4) that matter.

Your household pet is still debated as to whether it’s actually a full subspecies of the gray wolf or not. I believe it is. A lot of people do. But we will put it as a maybe just for the sake of argument, especially since it’s of no relevence to this discussion.

The Eastern wolf may not be a subspecies either. It exhibits enough variations that it could actually be a species of it’s own. Again, not relevent, so we will just leave it as a maybe.

The much mentioned canis lupus irremotus (the supposed native wolf of the northern Rockies) was not a subspecies in it’s own right. It was either nubilus, or occidentalis.

Nubilus was thought to be completely extinct until a population was found in Minnesota/Wisconsin/Upper Michigan. Nubilus is also found in Canada, making it a Canadian grey wolf.

Irremotus is in fact nubilus. So irremotus is a Canadian gray wolf. It just happens to like to live in the middle part of Canada and the range is thought to stretch up to Alaska.

Occidentalis also lives in Canada, Indeed, MacKenzie Valley is in Canada. If I recall it is in the Northwest Territories, and that puts it directly north of Washington.

So occidentalis is a canadian gray wolf… hmmmm

So just to be clear, wolves are canadian AND american, no matter which species you are talking about. They are dual citizens and proud of it.

So now that we have cleared up the subspecies thing. The weight and size thing has to be addressed.

Are canadian/american wolves bigger than american/canadian wolves. It’s really more a question of what type of environment and what type and amount of food do they have access to?

Our friends nubilus in the midwest like to eat deer. How does eating deer as a primary food source change the morphology of a wolf as opposed to those which eat elk? How does living in the midwest alter the morphology from living in the rocky mountains? Does a colder climate alter the overall size of a population? I can tell you this much, arctic wolves can be just massive…

If Occidentalis in the northwest territories is a bigger wolf generally than the wolves in yellowstone, and yet both are the same subspecies, then the clear question is what has 15 years of living in the northern rockies done to the wolves that live there?

The average weight of wolves in Idaho is approximately 86lbs for the girls, and 101lbs for the boys. Jon posted a link which explains where that number comes from.

Or better yet, diffuse the stupid rhetoric.

Gray wolves are gray wolves… other than the fact that more often than not, they are not gray. Canadian gray wolves are canadian, but often found in the US, and american wolves are american, but often are found in Canada. Some subspecies are bigger than others, except when they are smaller because they live somewhere different.

And yes, your pet dog is, infact, 100% (99.8% if you believe the DNA) wolf – and to add some extra confusion to the issue, they are specifically chinese wolves, probably grey at one point. As grey as any wolf is, anyway.

Interesting piece. The comments about Texas are telling. They don’t want anyone tellin em how to hunt, how to pollute. If we want to pollute we will and anyone that doesn’t like it can use their government run health care given to em by the guvmint

JB, I was wondering if you could explain why there is such a big fuss about the small populations of wolves in oregon and Washington and why you hear very little when compared with wolves about the very high cougar populations.

Breaks my heart to see those mountain lions sitting on trees, basically sitting ducks who are going to lose their life just because a macho sport hunter wants to kill it for a trophy. No sport involved what so ever and very cowardly to shoot a treed animal. Again, our species showing no respect what so ever for wildlife. I’m sure there is some wildlife lover that would have been very excited to see a mt. lion in the woods of BC and all those trophy hunters are taking those opportunities away from true wildlife lovers.

I agree that the effects of cattle/sheep depradation is in the eyes of the beholder. It is easy to say “thats part of being a rancher” from our living room. In the field, if they are your cattle it is another story. From what have heard an read one of the issues is confirmed wolf kill. In other words, if you have a video, can watch it, or get there before any other animals mess the scene up you have a chance. If not tough luck. I saw a report, that showed how OVERALL depradation has skyrocketed, but actual confirmed wolf kills were low. I can’t find that report, but I did find this one. Below is a link to a USDA predation report for 2005-2007. Form your own opinion…..http://rliv.com/pic/Collinge%20Paper.pdf

Interesting in 2005 Wolves numbered fewer then bear and mtn lion but accounted for more depradation.

Elk herds are being dramatically effected in general areas where they are present. Idaho has had reduce to the number of elk tags each year in these units. In area where the elk are not present elk are doing well. Below are elk counts surverys for Idaho Lolo elk zone 10 and 12 and for Banff Natl park.

As far as wolf numbers go, you can’t get an exact count. Especially in Idaho where it is against the law to fly over wilderness areas to tag wolves and get population surveys. Wolves don’t exactly stand up to be counted and Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have some very rugged country.

IDFG advises hunters in it annual publication, if you see wolf sign, hunt somewhere else, you probably won’t find very many elk

Everyone should read Carter Niemeyer’s book, “Wolfer,” just published, to help them judge the reliability of these depredation figures.

Niemeyer is interesting because he investigated hundreds of depredations and claimed depredations and kept careful notes which formed much of the basis of the book.

The conclusion he reaches is that Wildlife Services is not at all curious about challenging a rancher who has strong feeling about why his or her cow, goat, or horse lies dead. WS is interested in large budgets. There is no benefit to their organization with a conclusion that says “while the cow was torn open and fed on by several wolves, the cause of death was complications from a broken leg.”

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/01/18/1492435/chihuahua-survives-owl-attack.html
look for a new cheesy video by Rockholm Media addressing this vastly under reported but growing threat to to peoples health and well being not to mention their pets.It has to be another faucet of the ever growing conspiracy to totally eliminate the American way of life and is an attack on the very culture and lifestyle that made this country great.

I remember a time in Colorado, outside of Breckinridge, I don’t recall the name of the pass we were on, but I had my G. Shepherd running around, while my friend had her chihuahua. It was interesting watching them interact for a while, but all of a sudden, I told my friend it might be in her dog’s best interest to either carry it, or keep it very close…

Happy ending, as nothing swooped out of the sky to grab the little guy.

I saw a video last year of some type of eagle in Iberia that was huntiong goats in very steep rocky mountains. Amazing how they learned to knock the goats of the rocks to fall to their deaths. In one sequence to eagle picked it up and them dropped it. Amazing video…..

sadly, the fox was shot. I hope it was not significantly enough that it ended up killing him anyway.

And is anyone else just having the hardest time envisioning how that whole thing went down? The man and the fox got in to a tussle? Like, rolling around on the ground? Are we talking like a Die Hard type situation where they were fighting over the gun? This spawns some interesting images.

The National Elk Refuge in Jackson WY is looking for comments on its Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the next 10 years. They have asked me to encourage those interested to comment on the following questions:

1. What are the top three qualitys of the National Elk Refuge that you value most?
2. What issues would like to see addressed in the plan, from the point of view of consercation of natural resources or public use?
3.What improvements would you recomend for the National Elk Refuge?
4. Do you have additional thoughts, suggestions or comments to share?

All Comments must be returned by Febuary 10, 2011
you can give you comments by mail, email, or fax to:
Toni Griffn Planning Team Leader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Refuge Planning
P.O. Box 25486
Email: toni_griffin@fws.gov
Fax: 303/236 4792

Also please note the plan they are working on does not address Bison and Elk management, those plans are already decided on:
“The Bison and Elk Management Plan, completed in 2007, provides goals, objectives, and strategies for managing bison and elk on the National Elk Refuge and in Grand Teton National Park for the next 15 years. As such, the CCP will not address bison and elk management on the refuge, but will address all other aspects of refuge management, including migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, visitor use, and cultural resources.”

++Senate Bill 143 by Republican Sen. Debby Barrett would declare grizzly bears a recovered population that should be managed by the state. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation takes it up Tuesday.++

The scary thing is that she wants the Department of Livestock to manage grizzlies, not the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Debbie wants to do away with the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and let the Department of Livestock govern all wildlife in Montana. With the Department of Livestock running the show the landowner will want the ownership to wildlife.

I wrote before the elections about the outfitter set aside bill which passed and now all non residents licenses are going to be issued by an equal drawing. It passed by 10,000 votes. The real effect of this bill was that the voters which includes hunters and non hunters is that the citizens of the State of Montana are not going to allow wildlife to be privatized.

I get updates from
Animalsasia.com
The south korean culture with all their technological advancement think the best way to handle disease outbreak is to dig holes in the ground and then bury pigs alive with backhoes. I think they have ingested too much infected putrid bear bile that they think gives them good health!

+In some cases during and after the wolf hunt the names of hunters were posted on the Internet by opponents to the hunt. Some hunters said at the time that opened them up to harassment.+

I know one of the guys on the list and it angered me to see his name. Wanted to call him and ask why he felt it was necessary to kill a wolf but then realization sunk in. He’s a product of the enviornment around here (like the sheep rancher in a recent post)

Rural vs urban. In an urban setting you have to pick up the phone in order to deal with wildlife that might be interfering with your lifestlye.

In a rural setting, alot of wildlife is considered fair game – badgers, gophers, coyotes etc. Anyone with a gun and an “itch to shoot somethin” can “fire away” at will, and could care less about the effect that might have on another species.
Because its been the norm for years, does that somehow make it right or decent or a reason to excuse this kind of behavior?

I think the thing that bothers me most is the posing with what one has shot. I never really understood that. With something as controversial as last years hunt, I guess that if you wear the image of you with the wolf you killed as a badge, then you might expect to get some feedback. I guess I chuckle a bit at the term used, ” bullying.”

I don’t condone the harassment of “wolf”hunters. I would not do it, and I would ask friends to refrain from that type of harassment. This is contrary to one of my anti-wolf sparring mates who does not condone SSS, but would turn a blind eye toward it.

They bring it on themselves. People are not just going to standby and be ignored. They are disgusted with what hunters are doing to wildlife and sometimes, things like this will happen as a result of that. They love bragging about killing wildlife, but yet they are afraid to have their names out there. Them posing with the animal whose life they took and smiling sickens me. That’s all I going to say about that!

I would hardly agree with this. People shoot badgers, gophers, wolves, coyotes, bears for many reasons. This is a heterogeneous list. Pocket gophers and coyotes are widely perceived as pests. Now they may or may not be, but a person who kills what they see as a pest is not shooting it for the love of killing. They probably consider it to be work.

“Livestock owners regularly complain that rules protecting wolves should be relaxed. But wolf experts insist that if herds are properly shielded with fences, the predators won’t pose any problems” Sound familiar?

The State of Brandenburg (The State surrounding capital Berlin), where this incident occurred, is relatively new wolf country, with no more than one or two resident examples currently. People there are not yet used to cope with wolves such as in adjacent Saxonia, with about 60 wolves. There, proper fences even herd protection by dogs is fairly common and widespread nowadays with the guy tying his goat to a pole outside overnight becoming a rarity. Worst at the moment is Bavaria, where a single wolf came in from Italy last year and began to kill sheep on the mountain pastures. Sheep have been brought home for the winter season, so there is a lull in bad press for this wolf until spring.

I amazed at the comments about wolf hunter’s names being released over the internet. Especially after all the negative comments about the guy in Washington blurting out “shoot a legislator”. So each of you, now, has condoned threats and harassment as long as it is for your side of the argument, correct?
The wolf hunt was a legal activity. The hunter that participated, did so legally. You may not agree, but it definitely does not deserve promoting violence, threats or harassment to ones family, pets and home, period. The “holier than thou” attitude that permeates from some of you, really smells of hypocrisy to the extreme.
Please each of you that condones this behavior to the wolf hunters, provide your name, address so it can be posted for the “anti-wolf” people to call you, threaten your home and family, so you can see how it feels.
That kind of behavior cannot, should not be condoned any shape or form, period.

“They bring it on themselves. People are not just going to standby and be ignored. They are disgusted with what hunters are doing to wildlife and sometimes, things like this will happen as a result of that”

“then you might expect to get some feedback. I guess I chuckle a bit at the term used, ” bullying.”

I certainly agree with you on this. When the militia movement in Idaho started talking about killing Idaho legislators back in the 1990s, it promptly collapsed. I think we need to be just as diligent doing the same today.

I would hope that both sides would refrain from making comments of this nature, but from my understanding the release of the names of legal hunters, did result in threats being made by some of the extreme on the pro wolf side.

So I would have to surmise that both types of action resulted in comments that should not have been made. As many have stated on this blog as well as others, whether you make the statement or you do something to incite the statement, both should be looked and and punished..

Idaho Dave
Once again, if you quote me, quote my entire post. My apology to you if you in any way interpreted my condoning of the aforesaid harassment, however, if you had read my entire post, instead of reacting to what was a tripping point for you, I said I do not condone this behavior.

“Please each of you that condones this behavior to the wolf hunters, provide your name, address so it can be posted for the “anti-wolf” people to call you, threaten your home and family, so you can see how it feels.
That kind of behavior cannot, should not be condoned any shape or form, period.”

Many of us have already had our personal info spread all over the Internet on anti-wolf blogs and other places.

And you know something? The wolf reintroduction was a legal action and was prepared for and conducted in a legal manner. the wolf management programs and actions of the agencies charged with their management and monitoring were conducted within the parameters of law… So why are these wolf hunters whining about their names being made public and complaining about potential harassment, over a very short period of time I might add, when the wolf advocates AND managers have been subjected to continuous threats and harassment and other offensive acts against them and their families for years?
Many have had to relocated more than once.

Sounds like a bunch of self-proclaimed-entitlement-deserving (we’re specialer than you ideology) whiners who will throw temper tantrums when life doesn’t march along with their perceived yellow-brick-road pipe dreams. The only thing that they are most concerned with is having it their way and to hell with anyone else who disagrees, and they’ll make sure that those who do disagree suffer for it. It’s most common among those who don’t participate due process nor understand what it is or what it means. They tend to dwell in the negative.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has dropped their appeal of reconsideration of areas in Colorado, Montana and Idaho for critical lynx habitat designation. Colorado was excluded and also there is indication that lynx may be present in New Mexico.

I didn’t think so. He is representing a way of life. I felt he was very humble and accomodating concerning the wolf. He would like to know the oveerall plan is, do we just let them go wherever they want or do we manage them.
I thought his comment about Oregon state hood was very interesting. The way I understood it, part of accepting statehood was predicated on the Fed assisting the ranchers in the irradication of the wolf, kind of brings the State’s rights and sovereignty issue into play again.
What I am tired of hearing about, is how the wolves were removed a hundred years ago(Oregon Wild, speaker). Different times, people and demograhics, time to move on and get over it.
Idaho started with 35 wolves, Oregon has 27 now, in 15 years the number should be approaching 1000 wolves. I wonder, if anyone will have determined by then how many will be enough?
Right now Oregon is hoping four packs will trigger management of them. Good luck with that!

ID, we had no right wiping out the wolf. The planet does not belong to us. If we humans are responsible for extinctions that should have never happened in the first place. we owe it to the animals to bring them back where they belong regardless of what the wolf haters say. The wolf was one of those and that is why they should be brought back as they have already in some states. Our species has shown time and time again what little respect or regard we have for other beings on earth, specifically the non human ones that live in our woods. They should be allowed to live out their life no matter how short it may be. The problem is we view wildlife as natural resources. What we should view them as are living beings with lives.

Well Jon, since oregon had the support of the Federal Government at that time, I would say yes they had the right.
Just as the pro-wolf movement had the right to reintroduce the wolf with the support of the federal government, today.
“The only constant in life is change”, things were different, just as they are now.
Throughout time, animals have gone extinct, who is to say, that man’s part in those distinctions, is not really part of the “grand scheme”. Reintroducing endangered species, today, could be considered as big a mistake as their removal in the first place.
For now, your side is winning, at the expense of the deer and elk, cattle and sheep ranching. Back then, then wolf lost and deer, elk and ranchers benefitted. I won’t condemn what happened 100 years ago, as I wasn’t there and I don’t know all the issues, at that time.
Too bad compromises can’t seem to be reached so that all species benefit, then and now.

“‘The only constant in life is change’, things were different, just as they are now.”

So change in a “way of life” isn’t warranted because…?

Change, indeed. So why can’t those with an unnatural “way of life” that is detrimental to all other living beings on the planet be expected to change? Just because it’s what they’ve been doing for a while doesn’t mean they are exempt from change as a necessity. They are here and likely the catalyst for the need to reverse what they did in order to be able to even come here and persist. The fact that serious manipulation of the environment was needed to entice and maintain the existence of these ranchers and the like is telling in itself.

The Native Americans had a “way of life” here for thousands of years but when the Euros showed up that all changed. Was it a good change? Not really. It only took a little over a hundred years for the Euros to trash the living daylights out of the western region of the continent… it’s a little late but the fact that some things can be righted shouldn’t be deterred because a select few are disadvantaged to some degree. It would appear that the changes we Americans forced upon the people and the landscape of the west were ill-conceived at best. This is a time when we should admit our mistakes and take action to correct them, like the reintroduction of the gray wolf. (It also appears that the only folks who can’t tolerate the reintroduction are those who can’t admit that their removal was an error in the first place, whether the actors of such eliminations understood the environmental impacts or not.)

In the grand scheme we humans should be “managed” to decrease our negative impact on all the other life-forms that sustain the environment that sustains us. It’s really that simple… only those who claim some elevated sense of entitlement would argue that there is no validity to this point that is the 7 Billion pound human in the room.

There is a link on the thylacine museum website to “Magnificent Survivor” which can be downloaded for free. There is some compelling evidence to prove there is an extant population of tigers. The people that know don’t want the government to know based on their prior track record. It is interesting that Benjamin died in 1936 from Pneumonia and neglect after being left outside of her enclosure. So much for protected status

Most of your talking points would be good candidates for our anti-wolf bingo board. “For now, your side is winning, at the expense of deer and elk, and cattle and sheep ranching” You left out- Foreign Canadian wolves. By the way- do you have any figures to back up those claims?

Interesting in 2005 Wolves numbered fewer then bear and mtn lion but accounted for more depradation.

Elk herds are being dramatically effected in general areas where they are present. Idaho has had reduce to the number of elk tags each year in these units. In area where the elk are not present elk are doing well. Below are elk counts surverys for Idaho Lolo elk zone 10 and 12 and for Banff Natl park.

Also, there are a number of sub species of wolves. Just maybe, the wolf that was reintroduced does have different characterisitcs, behaviors, size differences than the wolf that was exterminated at the turn of century. Can you prove it doesn’t? Why is that so hard to believe? Different habitat, environment and prey, animals adapt to their environment.

saveelk.com is the website of accused elk poacher Tony Mayer. He loves elk so much apparently that he kills them out of season. All gray wolves are the same Idaho Dave. It does not matter what subspecies of wolf they are, any wolf you put into Idaho will eat deer, elk, livestock, etc. The gray wolves in Idaho now have been doing all of the same things that the “native” wolf that was wiped out did. It kills game animals and it kills livestock. I think the problem is that hunters check out saveelk.com and read some of the things that is said on it and believes just because they read something from a wolf hater, then it must be true. Tony Mayer is a liar and a criminal as far as I’m concerned.

It is a problem in Idaho that they do not and will not pass an animal cruelty law. I believe, due to the heavy influence of the cattle, dairy and feedlot (CAFO’s) operations within the state.
Not something to be proud of, but animal cruelty legislation gets no where.

Nancy –
Animals may in fact be property or human resources, depending on their physical status – i.e. wild or domesticated. As simple as this sounds (is) I think your point is understood. Somehow, animals should be conferred rights similar or identical to those we recognize for people. That has neither the legal nor the moral foundation in any our western culture (at least) to serve as a societal rule. Animals, whether domesticated or wild will be and should be managed as property or common trust resources, with appropriate strictures to prohibit cruelty and other human caused outcomes that are abhorent to our society.

+Somehow, animals should be conferred rights similar or identical to those we recognize for people+

In a perfect world Mark, in a perfect world. Unfortunately mankind has yet to figure out how to put a stop to the cruelty we inflict on our own species (and those images, fill the nightly news and internet sites daily)

I think it is going to be a tough winter for deer and elk in a number of states. Idaho has had a lot of early snow fall which pushed animals down a lot lower than normal. Hopefully spring will arrive early or there will be a large die off. Of course, the wolves will benefit.

From an Arizona reporter’s perspective who “has covered the grazing fee issue off and on for more than 15 years in the Southwest.”

There are links to 5 related documents.
___________

“Surprise”: Feds turn down enviros’ petition to raise grazing fees

“Don’t fall out of your chair. The Federal government just announced it is turning down a five-year-old petition from an environmentalist coalition to raise grazing fees. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management sent separate responses to the environmental groups this week.”

When I lived in Southern Illinois, every once in a while one would find some hunters beagle running around by itself long after the hunters packed up and went home. Look at the disk and call the hunter up to come get his dog.

I don’t find comfort in the death of anyones pet, or dog, yet it is now one of those bitter ironies that if your dogs are running loose while hunting, nature has just added an equalizer to the hunt.

But as to this story, how does one hunt rabbits with the dogs, if the dogs are out of site?

I have no sympathy for those hunters. I feel sad for the dogs. It is the hunter’s fault plain and simple. Common sense would tell you if you love your dogs very much, don’t take them out and let them run wild in the woods where YOU KNOW there are dangerous predators that can and will kill your dogs given the chance. I’m sure the hunters are going to use this to demonize wolves some more even though the hunters themselves are the ones that got their dogs killed.

Sure glad there’s wolves around, puts a stop to hound hunting. For that matter better not let my bird dog loose either. Oh yeah, wolves won’t effect hunting opportunies either, will they? Remember that’s just one those consiracy theories.
What else will be curtailed so we can enjoy the benefits of the wolf?

Hunting big cats with dogs is just plain lazy hunting. Let the dogs do the work, run the cat up the tree, then shoot.

I hike in wolf territory with my dog, know the risks I take, and keep my dog on an electric collar also. There are plenty of dogs in this world, not very many wolves left, nor lots of other wildlife for that matter.

Leslie,
I’m with you. I spend quite a bit of time in “wolf country” with my dog(s). The last two really won’t let me get out of their sight. I figure I’ve got one more big dog in me, and if he doesn’t behave like those that preceded him, perhaps the electric collar would be the way to go.

Ovis,

Yes, it’s the danger of the hunt. In a sense, its a risk we all take every time we go into wilderness areas. I guess it’s what makes the true wilderness so special.

Wolves have a been a meaningful part of the UP landscape for almost twenty years now…even when they are delisted and hunted this type of incident will still occur on occasion. It’s part of the risk bear and rabbit hunters accept (whether they admit it or not) when they let their dogs loose in wolf country. The Wisconsin DNR has been much more proactive in providing updated info for hunters as to locations where they can run their dogs…Mich doesn’t compensate hunters for wolf-killed dogs..Wisco did (not sure if still do) – so that may have something to do with the above DNR action.
Used to hunt rabbit with a friend who had a couple beagles..on occasion one wouldn’t come back so we would have to return later that night or the next day – always located the dog sooner or later….much riskier now.
Whining is as much a part of hunting as relaying past successes in the woods…I say that as someone who grew up hunting in a hunting family.

Here’s something nice for a change… I got this from one of my Native American friends:

An Iroquois legend proves to be true.
A VERY unusual herd of deer…white-tails…yes, but more.
The location is near Boulder Junction, Wisconsin near the border with Michigan’s upper peninsula.
Turn up the sound and enjoy!

I know its “tis the season” but how many of you (or someone you know) seem to be experiencing that nasty nasal thing going around? Not really a cold, not the flu, not quite bronchial, stretching on for more than a week? Lot of people in my area suddenly have it.

I would wonder where you are in proximity to an air pollution source and whether it was carried to your area by wind. When I lived in Pocatello, ID I was regularly ill with a pseudo-sinus infection that was actually the result of phosphate poisoning thanks to the stinkpot (Simplot) elemental phosphate processing plant at the top of the valley. From there wind would carry the chemicals dumped during the night into the valley. The air was so nasty hat when I stepped out my door it was like someone was waiting with a dusty bag of fertilizer and hit me in the face with it. I had to wear something over my mouth and nose just to be able to breathe while walking to classes or work. Nasty as hell. It caused other health problems too but they were never diagnosed because the medical cabal there isn’t interested in environmental issues, only whether you have insurance so they can get paid to keep misdiagnosing your illnesses.

I went to visit a couple months ago and was terribly ill by the time I got back up into the mountains, I was only there for 24 hours. There was a temperature inversion that holds all the pollution at the valley floor, can last for days, and it was pretty stinky that day. I had forgotten how nasty it was.

Salle – can’t think of anything that would be the cause in my area. I guess my concern has to do with all the animal dieoffs and no real solid reasons why and then throw in 200 head of cows dead in WI and none of them responded to treatment.

The claim is that this was weather related. So, I can see that for the cattle but for a native species like the buffalo… makes me wonder if that’s actually true. Not that winter weather has never killed off species in their native habitat, it just sounds too convenient a claim to make. It’s in Vietnam for heaven’s sake, remember… the land of the intentional dioxin/agent orange spills brought about by the US of A?

With the link to Ubrigkit’s anti-wolf web site as the only related link, it kind of indicates that this news will be fodder for the next round of truth vs wishful thinking and whatever it takes to keep up the fight. Doesn’t seem to matter if they make any sense, just keep screaming… or crying wolf.

Seems it was a frivolous lawsuit to begin with, they can’t take no for an answer and so continue to throw their well financed temper tantrums at taxpayers’ expense. I wonder how much taxpayer $$ have been spent on such lawsuits to date. And I wonder how much is wasted on the legislative attempts to eliminate the ESA and other foolish proposals, paid for by taxpayers. I wonder where I could find out about that.

The USFW is taking comments regarding the use of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft in order to kill wolves in the western end of Unimak Island, 98% of which is a wilderness area and wildlife refuge. Less then 60 people live on the island at False Pass, located at the east end.

The action is propossed to increase the production of caribou for the island’s residents; however, they hunt on the mainland because that is easier and closer than crossing the rugged island to the west where the caribou reside. The only caribou killed on the island in the past ten years have been taken by non-islanders coming to hunt primarily for trophy animals. The ratio of male to female caribou is possibly too low to replenish the depleted herd. There are about 50 wolves on the island. Currently there are two commercial guiding services available for the island.

I am not a big fan of social networking. However, this stuff while being funny is in desperate need of distribution. It warms my heart to know that there are people who view things from this perspective.
Thanks Jerry. I wasn’t certain I had it in me to view all 8 minutes, but glad I did…….

Pointswest do you know why photographers get charged by bears so often? When a bear is going to charge it lowers its head and looks directly at what it is going to charge. Many photographers who are not using a tripod lower their heads and stick a big eye directly at a bear, giving clear body language to the bear that they are about to tear the bear’s limbs off with their bare hands. Runners probably won’t fare as bad as they would be approached as possible prey, which is not an instantaneous reaction by the bear, and if runners are a little bit aware, they could perceive a bear checking them out to see if they are biteable.

I vaguely recall a rag like Field and Stream with a series of photos on it’s cover of a grizzly sow and her cub. When you opened the magazine up to it’s cover story, the caption read something like, “And this is the last picture the guy took…” as he was looking through his lens, he did not notice the speed at which the bear was closing upon him, and grabbed him before he could get up a tree. One for the Darwin Awards

I read about the same person, Charles Gibbs, in an Audubon magazine in the late 1980s. He took about 40 pictures of the bears before he was killed. Also, he had a handgun with him which he did not use.

So what. I enjoy hunting them and could careless what anyone thinks. Rainbow trout are not native to most of North America yet millions of anglers enjoy fishing for them and brown trout are not native to North America.

Then there are Huns, my favorite, they are not native to North America, they is nothing like a cool October day with the leaves turning yellow hunting huns, chuckars and pheasants. European people are not native to North American or were people native to North America 15,000 years ago but we are here and not leaving.

So what? So here in my state the Division of Wildlife actually loses money administering the pheasant program. And–you’ll love this–they’ve had numerous issues with “hunters” following around the release truck (pheasants, of course, have to be stocked).

“Put and take” fisheries are one thing…stocking wildlife so hunters can shoot them is something entirely different.

– – – –

P.S. I’ll remember this the next time the topic of wild horses or feral cats come up.

But this wildlife area is a wetlands with many ponds and marshes. It is important for all sorts of wildlife. I would guess deer and elk winter there too. Maybe someday, it will support bison. But it is a windfall for all sorts of wildlife, not just pheasants.

Elk, JB –
Another debate (native/non-native wildlife management) that could go for days. It has been ongoing for decades already. This is a public policy issue that an observation by JB in another recent thread applies to: (paraphrasing) “public policy is justified when it serves the public interest”. We have non-natives species because of intentional and unintentional (invasive) introductions. Intentional introductions (pheasants and rainbow trout e.g.) were supported by public policy for those times that was responsive to public desires and interest. Rainbow trout outside of their native range are now known to conflict with the public interest by displacing and replacing highly valued native cutthroat trout. Similar ecological conflicts for other non-native species like pheasants may not exist. If there is a clear value to society for pheasant hunting management, including pheasant stocking, without clear costs to the public interest – where is the public policy conflict? I’ll suggest that many of these conflicts spring from philosphical differences, rather that legitimate public interest conflicts – ecological, fiscal, or others – that can be rationally argued to be a cost or harm to society.

I have never hunted where pheasants were stocked nor would I. I do not think they stock pheasants in Montana, it is wild hunting and wild trout in the rivers.

Huns, from what I have read, all of the Huns in Montana come from a stocking of about 50 birds in 1913 in High River, Alberta. The Lake Trout in Yellowstone Lake is a real problem regardless of how they got there.

“This is a public policy issue that an observation by JB in another recent thread applies to: (paraphrasing) “public policy is justified when it serves the public interest”. We have non-natives species because of intentional and unintentional (invasive) introductions. Intentional introductions (pheasants and rainbow trout e.g.) were supported by public policy for those times that was responsive to public desires and interest.”

And so there is no agency or set of informed beings to let the public know when their “interests” are not ethically or environmentally sound? Shouldn’t that be one of the duties of Fish and Game and other knowledgeable persons? Given what we know now about invasive species and endangerment of others shouldn’t there be some sort of re-evaluation process? You can’t always give the public what they want just because they think it would be fun or entertaining with little or no thought given to what consequences might be involved, especially when they lack education with regard to such concerns. Shouldn’t that be one of the responsibilities of F&Gs and other knowledgeable persons and education systems?

I realize it’s a little late for some of these invasive and non-native releases but I think it would be appropriate to recall these major mistakes when considering other non-natives species releases. With that, I do consider the gray wolf to be a native species to most of the continent, so they should be allowed to persist and thrive, cows on the other hand should not be allowed to do so in this environment, as in free range and public lands grazing… just as an example of the difference. Nor should we kill wildlife to protect livestock.

Since pheasants mostly habitate cultivated areas that are not natural in the first place, I see no problem with them. They are beautiful birds, they are fun to hunt, and they are excellent eating. This area near Mudlake used to be fabulous pheasant hunting in the 60’s and early 70’s. We would always limit out and I believe the limit was four or five roosters. We did not have dogs nor special permision to hunt private land. We would just walk fields and ditches and always limit.

The Camas Creek Wildlife area is very interesting and historical for both Idaho and Montana. It was always an oasis in the vast dangrous desert of the Snake River Plain. The marshes and lakes there were a very important camping area for Indians traveling to and fro between Idano and Montana over Monida Pass some 45 miles north. It was later an important oasis on the Montana Trail that served Bannack, Virigina City, and Helena, Montana…the most imprtant trail to Montana in the 1860’s The Sandhole Store and the Sandhole Station (stage line station) was very important for travel to Bannack, Virigina City, and Helena and to Samon City in central Idaho. The Sandhole was the scene of many old west dramas since the portion of the Montana trail just north of the Sandhole was the most dangerous. Many a stage came charing into the Sandhole for refuge with either Indians or stagecoach robbers in hot pursuit. Sandhole lake used to be good fishing…it may still be. The Utah & Northern Railroad, the first railroad in Idaho and Montana which followed the Montana Trail, had an important station there called Camas Creek Station.

Salle –
Ultimately, it is the public – society – that determines which values, including ethical principles, will guide public wildlife management policy. The IDFG, in this case, is the technical steward of the public’s wildlife resources, under the guidance and policy direction of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. The Commission, appointed by the Governor, has the vested responsibility to represent the interests of the Idaho public in those management policies. The Commission balances public input with direction from the state constitution, judiciary, legislature and governor’s office to craft wildlife management policy, supported by advice and recommendations from the Department of Fish and Game.
OK – not to sound like a lecturer, but there’s an important point in this. A Fish and Game (Wildlife) Department can’t and shouldn’t presume to know what is “best” for society. That responsibility belongs to the public – through the representation of the Commission.

Good points, Mark. I would add that, in addition to stocking costs, you also have the costs of administering the program–which are especially relevant given the limited resources available to F&G agencies in these times. Thus, you have a program that draws resources away from conservation efforts to support a species that is not native. I don’t object to this on philosophical grounds (I quite enjoyed fishing for stocked steelhead last year), I object to it on pragmatic grounds–I believe a rational c/b analysis would lead the logical person to conclude that these resources would be better spent elsewhere.

The same probably is not true in every state.
– – – –

PW: I would agree that, in this particular instance, the setting aside of the lands in question is a net win; however, it is relevant to acknowledge the potential costs.

“Since pheasants mostly habitate cultivated areas that are not natural in the first place, I see no problem with them.”

This, of course, begs the question: Will the purchased lands be “cultivated” for the production of pheasants, or left in a “natural” state?

“A Fish and Game (Wildlife) Department can’t and shouldn’t presume to know what is “best” for society. That responsibility belongs to the public – through the representation of the Commission.”

Yes. And this is why the make up of wildlife boards/commissions is so critical. These commissions–especially in western states– tend to be dominated by people who represent the interests of sportsmen and agriculture. This situation is not problematic when the desires of sportsmen and agriculture generally reflect the desires of the general populace. However, it becomes a major issue when there is conflict in the society (state) that is not reflected by the commission.

The public trust doctrine sets up a trustee–beneficiary relationship whereby the state agency (on behalf of the govt.) manages wildlife with all of the state’s citizens as beneficiaries. The PTD is thwarted when commissions are heavily skewed in favor of one interest group. Looking to the future, one might ask whether state governments will resist diversification of commissions, entrenching existing interests, or will they seek to diversify commissions in order to be more broadly representative of the state’s citizens? Something to think on: As the number of hunters and anglers dwindles (as a % of the population), the composition of these commissions becomes increasingly biased in their favor.

My fear is that governments and agencies will resist change, relying more and more on sportsmen until sportsmen make up too small a % of the population to be politically relevant. Meanwhile, agencies via their commissions will alienate non-hunting conservationists in the process.

It seems, to me at least, that it would be part of the F&Gs’ job to educate the public when they want something that will have a negative impact on the environment and future generations should they push forth with some desire that is not environmentally sound. Apparently that is not the case, according to your comment.

People can be pretty stupid and they often require more info than they normally get elsewhere on invasive species and that particular set of concerns. If they can’t find the info in their schools (which they should also be more attentive to) the F&G should be an auxiliary source of unbiased info so they CAN make informed decisions.

So, from your comment I’m guessing that, if Idahoans wanted alligators in the lakes, rivers and reservoirs and hyenas in the Snake River Plain that it would be okay with F&G regardless of how many little girls might get eaten while waiting for the school bus in the dark? And that it would be absurdly inappropriate for F&G to tell them that they would be foolish to go forth with such a plan?

But then, I guess, in this current political world, whomever wins the election is the sole source of rationale and any sort of common sense or intellect that may differ is left out in the cold. As in, “I won and you don’t matter now that the election is over”. Since the F&G is an appointed situation, it would follow that whatever the governator wants the F&G does, regardless of what consequences are in store for everyone else after whatever action the governator wants is taken.

I find that this is a problem of representation as well, the politicians who represent my state don’t represent me or any of my values, and they say so in their form letters, to my face and through other venues.

JB writes: “This, of course, begs the question: Will the purchased lands be “cultivated” for the production of pheasants, or left in a “natural” state?”

While I do not know exactly where the purchased ranch is, I do know that the “natural state” in this area is desert sage and I mean a dry and sparse desert sage. I spent a lot of time there when young. The cultivated areas have something like 10 times the wildlife, as measured in pounds, than the adjacent dry desert sage. Let’s assume they keep some of this land under cultivation. Since they will irrigate it, cultivated land will provide for much more wildlife than dry desert sage of which there is no shortage of in the region. They will probably plant brush and trees along field edges or in patches for additional cover that will be good for more wildlife. Camas Creek runs through or, at least, nearby and they probably got the all-important water rights to it. They may be able to use water from Camas Creek to create more marshes and ponds so there will be additional wetlands for wildlife…but I am only guessing at their intentions.

JB –
You and I fundamentally agree on how our system of wildlife management works.
“These commissions–especially in western states– tend to be dominated by people who represent the interests of sportsmen and agriculture. This situation is not problematic when the desires of sportsmen and agriculture generally reflect the desires of the general populace. However, it becomes a major issue when there is conflict in the society (state) that is not reflected by the commission. ”
Speaking only for Idaho – this Commission has consistently received positive to high marks of approval from the Idaho public in recent polls and surveys that were professionally designed and conducted. No doubt that statement (mine alone) will be vigorously challenged by Commission and Department critics, but the facts are the facts. The Idaho public is less divided on the key wildlife conservation and management issues than the heated dialogs would indicate.
With that said, Salle asked an important question: should the Fish and Game Dept. ADVISE the public, Commission or elected leaders when a proposed action would have consequences counter to fundamental wildlife values – e.g. sustainability – or other wildlife public policies? Yes, absolutely. That is one of the most important responsibilities of a government agency with trust responsibilities. We (IDFG) are the technical advisors for the Commission, elected leaders and the public. The critical distinction is: We are the advisors – not public policy makers or decision makers for public policy implementation outside of wildlife management actions. The Governor or Legislature or Fish and Game Commission (or County Commission, City Counsel ……) own the responsibility to formulate those policies and make those decisions that are outside the scope of authority of government agencies.
For a native species issue – the Fish and Game Commission has broad discretion – within the framework set by the Legislature and Governors Office.
Salle, I do respect and appreciate that not all your preferences for wildlife management carry the day with policy development or decision making. That is inherent to any system of government. Within my own responsibilities to public involvement I can say from painful experience that balancing disparate and diverse public input is a constant, difficult responsibility elected leaders and appointed public servants are challenged with. Are those decisions, always unpopular with and opposed by a segment of the public, in the public interest? That question is tested every 2 to 4 years with local, state and national elections.

I don’t have access to your data, but I can speak with some first hand knowledge to what has happened with one of your neighboring states.

In 2003, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources conducted a series of scoping meetings to learn how people felt about wolves in the state. They found 719 of 897 attendees identified “do not allow wolves in Utah” as one of their top management priorities.

At the same time, we conducted a rigorous study of Utah residents, stratified to obtain representative samples from both rural and urban residents, and weighted (post-hoc) such that results reflected the population in terms of gender, education levels, and age. We found that more than half of residents (~55%) agreed with the item “I would like to see wolves in Utah.” In addition, this result was statistically identical to a 1994 survey.

So what was the result? Utah spent two years developing a management plan that was sabotaged by Don Peay and the so-called “Sportsmen” for Fish & Wildlife. Not that it mattered, last year the legislature intervened (allegedly) directly on behalf of sportsmen and agriculture when it passed a law calling on the UDWR to abandon their extremely conservative management plan in favor of an all out ban on wolves.

Yet, before any of this even started, the DWR Chief was already defending their wildlife board and commission:

“Many statements have been made to the effect that the Regional Advisory Councils and the Utah Wildlife Board are dominated by agricultural and sportsmen interests, thus making them incapable of developing sound wolf management policy. I would concur that the views and concerns of these two interests groups play a dominant role in the development of wildlife policy in Utah, and rightfully so…. By statute, the legislature has appropriately given landowners and sportsmen a prominent seat at the policy making table in Utah” (K. Conway, 2002).

I will add that Alaska has had similar problems with their wildlife board, which, some would argue, led to a number of ballot initiatives in the state.

There was a very good (in my opinion) piece in the WSB a few years back that I dug up and re-read after this exchange. The authors point out that there have been numerous calls “…for reform of the wildlife management institution to better reflect the values, norms, and cultural beliefs of contemporary society.” They further suggest that “traditional stakeholders need to understand the reasons for and benefits of change so that transformation will be met by them with acceptance and not resistance.”

My belief is that the institution of wildlife management in this country is standing upon a precipice. Agencies can resist change and continue to cater primarily to hunters and anglers (and risk alienating non-traditional users of wildlife); or they can seek to broaden support for wildlife conservation both from without and within (and risk losing some hunters and anglers in the process). The choice agencies make will undoubtedly impact wildlife conservation in years to come.

“Some have even suggested that an “iron triangle” relationship exists among wildlife management agencies, traditional user groups (e.g., hunters) and policymakers that “limits access to resource management decision processes to those outside the triangle and creates still more social tension and conflict” (Gill 2004: 37). The iron triangle concept suggests that people with different interests in the wildlife resource and different views about proper use of those resources (e.g., nonhunters) are excluded from equal influence on and access to wildlife decision-making processes, particularly at the state level. This occurs both formally (e.g., by not being legitimized through membership on a wildlife board or commission) and informally (e.g., by lack of access to existing informal networks)” (emphasis mine).

Decker, D.J., Organ, J.F., and Jacobson, C.A. (2009) Why should all Americans care about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation? Transactions of the 74th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Arlington, VA.

For those who are not familiar, both John Organ and Dan Decker are past presidents of the Wildlife Society.

JB…despite all the fear and loathing on the Nixon campaign trail, the 20,000 acres will now probably be preserved forever as exceptional wildlife habitat. It is a good thing and hunters played an important role.

PW: The purchased lands totaled 2,700 acres that were purchased “through a collaborative effort that also involved local chapters of Pheasants Forever and federal land managers.”

I’m not sure if you missed it, but I have already conceded that this is a net win for wildlife. However, again, it is relevant to acknowledge the potential costs (i.e., the “strings” attached). In this case, the property will likely be managed as pheasant (a non-native species) habitat, which may include stocking.

I don’t doubt your ability to read, but your presentation of the information was misleading. You said: “…the 20,000 acres will now probably be preserved forever as exceptional wildlife habitat.” What you neglected to mention was that ~18,000 acres were already preserved via the land’s designation as a National Wildlife Refuge, and a state Wildlife Area. Also, whether the 2,700 acres in question is managed as “exceptional wildlife habitat” depends, of course, on if/how it is managed-and I would add what is exceptional habitat for one species may be terrible habitat for others, which was really the point I was trying to make with my original post.

My initial reaction was also brought on by the way that you presented this story:

“…let’s see, if I am not mistaken, these people are hunters.”

So I wonder, did you think that your mock sarcasm would improve the image of hunters among the non-hunting readers of this blog? Or were you just fishing for a fight? This type of identity-based rhetoric is what is driving hunters and non-hunting conservationists apart. Perhaps this is your intent?

The pro/anti hunting rhetoric on this blog is divisive and an utter waste of time.

“What have any of the organizaiton you support done besides bring lawsuits where the costs are paid for by taxpayers?”

I know where you get this misinformation… it sure detracts from your credibility when you use it as an argument here, it just proves that you actually believe this bull. Why do you insist on perpetuating these lies?

I have to go to work, can someone please post the debunk reference for this swill?

Salle: Don’t read things into my question. I generally support DW and WWP and others. The point is that hunting groups have money because hunters are active in the outdoors and are willing to fork over money for their sport and they do many good things that I think many people tend to…gloss over, shall we say.

JB: The anti-hunter rhetoric is so toxic on this blog that I quit it for about 8 months because I was insensed when there was a celebration and jokes made about a hunter being killed by a grizzly. Why don’t you lecture the laugh-at-the-dead-man people here on presentation and identity-based rhetoric ?

I used mild sarcasm because the point of my posting the article was that hunters do many good things for wildlife. If someone wants to police discussion, they should, at least, attempt to police both sides.

I have admonished posters for stereotyping hunters countless times on this blog; however, I can only respond to what I read. I agree that the rhetoric here has worsened in recent months, much to my dismay. Regardless, since hunters make up a relatively small percentage of the population, you might stop to consider the potential long-term consequences of rhetoric that alienates non-hunters.

As long as they continue to call it “Global Warming” you are going to continue to see naysayers, in fact it is “Global Climate Change” Some areas will be warmer, some areas will be colder and some areas are going to be more unstable.

Not at all. You can call it what you want. I do not need to have it my way. You can call it a sign from God that he hates queers or that he hates the polar ice caps for all I care. I am just saying that I am calling it global warming because I believe this is what it is and that is comes from additional carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. You can have it your way and believe whatever you want.

All enclosed fluid systems attempt to reach equilibrium…dynamic at first then static. But along the way , the Second Law of Thermodynamics takes over. Commonly called ” entropy “. The concept is that the entropy of a closed system always increases. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only conserved or converted. The operative component , and what we measure coming and going, is what we commonly call heat. Anything given up on the march towards equilibrium is expressed as heat , which is after all just the motion of molecules and atoms. Absolute Zero is defined as the equilbrium point where all atomic motion ceases.

Entropy explains why you can use a propane flame to make ice or freeze something…why our refrigerators work from heat engines .

The Earth’s atmosphere is just such a closed fluid system . What we humans have done is accelerate the entropy by inserting greenhouse gases into the fluid system which accelerate processes…just enough to steer the equilibrium. It’s the so-called ” tipping point”. Anthropogenic gases are not a huge component of the atmosphere, but they do not have to be to upset the equilibrium or redirect the entropy. Our industrial output wasted into the atmosphere is enough to nudge the whole system…warmer here, cooler over there, in a more fluxative mode everywhere.

Enough science lecture. What really irks me about the entire Global Climate Oscillation debate is that we have seen this movie before, engaged it, came up with the proper response, and acted globally to head off a pending atmospheric calamity worldwide. It was when we recognized that we humans were destroying the Ozone Layer by introducing weird ( unnatural) chemistry into the upper atmosphere ( chlorine compounds , mainly from Freon ). We humans created ozone holes at both poles, whcih began to spread . They allowed a dramatic increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth’s surface, and more importantly the ocean surface. Certain biotic processes were starting to run off the rails. So we agreed to limit the first of many greenhouse gases to come. Chlorohydrofluorocarbons.

We saved the planet, or at least our own biome. We aren’t completely out of the woods yet, since the Ozone Layer will not be fully healed till midcntury . But if we hadn’t sarted countering the buildup of CGC’s when we did, we may have easily gone past a point of no return. ( As is , the residents of Tierra del Fuego are still getting baked by UV and seeing a lot of skin cancer among other effects).

We know how to do Cap and Trade. We know how to control harmful gases. We’ve proven we as the entirety of te human race can exercise the political will to tackle our anthropogenic environmental self-destruction when the stakes of not doing so are known.

What we have to do now is hold the corproation’s feet to the fire and take the greenhouse gas debate into the board rooms of the energy , mineral, and manufacturing hegemonies around the globe.

We need to inject some entropy into the corporate communistic capitalist beliefs. The problem is real. And we know we can fix it, because the Ozone Layer was a great training regimen. Now the stakes are much much higher , and we cannot begin to act soon enough.

This anti-wolf nut on hunting washington keeps claiming that the WDFW are releasing wolves all over the state.Even the hunters on that website are questioning his claims. When asked for evidence that proves that Washington is releasing wolves all over WA, he isn’t able to provide any.

Great link. Posting about some guy posting some chit on some forum! I think you are really on to something.

There are nuts everywhere. I could fill pages of crazies on the other side (scary stuff)too Jon… But what would be the point? They are at the minimum, mentally challenged and chemically imbalanced (or influenced 🙂 )

I’ve seen posts on Washington forums where guys claim that Weyerhauser dropped wolves from the air in crates in the 80’s or 90’s with parachutes down around southwest Washington. he believed it was to kill off elk that were eating freshly planted saplings. He said he saw, or someone he knew saw a crate hanging from a tree with a parachute and a wolf carcass inside the crate. The crate was left alone for the night and when he or they returned the next day the crate mysteriously had vanished!

“My own personal introduction to the wolf program began when I worked for Crown Zellerbach. A pair of timber cutters we worked with found a cage attached to a parachute hanging from a 30 ft. evergreen tree.”

Some here may remember, from an earlier post about 6 months ago, I made inquiries regarding the belief that there were wolves near St. Helen’s. I checked with WA Wildlife and the biologists at the Monument – all were lengthy and detailed conversations, and I have a strong belief they were truthful. I should also say I hunted in the area north of St. Helens for many years around Vanson Peak.

The conclusion then was that there have been NO VERIFIABLE WOLF SIGHTING OR DNA. I have no VERIFIABLE information since that time that contradicts this.

Actually, Toby does post as that names sometimes, but I’m fairly certain that wolfbait on there is a hunter by the name of Todd Maltais. Someone informed me of this and he’s fairly certain that that is Todd. He also posts on wolf watch 2.

Calendar

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."